Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 785/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 785 OF 2018

_____________

RE:
	RAI RANJANA	Applicant

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Suffiad in Chambers

Date of Decision: 5 November 2021

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The Applicant, by summons dated 3 February 2021, applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C. P. Pang given on 28 September 2020 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing her non-refoulement claim protection.

2.The 14 day period for the Applicant to file her appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 12 October 2020 and hence she was over three and a half months late with her intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review, a court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if extension of time were granted.

4.In the Applicant’s case, the delay of over three and a half months is not insignificant. The Applicant gave in her summons the reason for the delay to be due to her not receiving the Court’s decision.

5.The court record shows that the decision of the Court was sent on the same day it was given to the last reported address of the Applicant with no indication that it was not properly delivered. However, it is noted that in her present summons, the Applicant has given a different address. If at the time the decision of the Court was given, and at that time the Applicant had changed address, then she has only herself to blame for not keeping the court updated with her current address.

6.As for the prospect of the intended appeal, the Applicant has not put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal. Neither has the Applicant alluded to any particulars of any error of law in the decision of the Court or why it can be said that the decision of the Court was unfair or unreasonable.

7.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

8.This being an application to extend time to appeal against the decision of the Court, it is for the Applicant to show that there is a reasonably arguable appeal. This she has not done.

9.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what would appear to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Court and dismiss the summons.